4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  At the material time the applicant was a head of the structural unit of a joint stock company, “G.”, and the head of a limited liability company, “U.” (hereinafter “the U. company”). He was also a major shareholder in the last-mentioned company.
6.  On 17 September 1997 the U. company, concluded a sale contract with the local department of the State Property Fund of Ukraine within the privatization procedure, acquiring thereby a property right over non‑residential premises in Kharkiv.
7.  On 15 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with several counts of abuse of power, financial fraud and forgery concerning the aforesaid companies. A substantial part of the charges was related to acquiring of the above-mentioned premises. Later, criminal proceedings were instituted against Mrs G., Mrs Ga. and Mrs Sh. on account of the same charges.
8.  On 18 November 1998 the District Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention on remand relying on the seriousness of the charges against him. In his decision he also noted that the applicant had failed to appear before the investigator and that he could not be found at his permanent residence. The applicant was put on the wanted list. Following this event, the proceedings were suspended. On 15 June 1999 the disputed premises, being evidence in the criminal proceedings against the applicant, were attached. In the period prior to 22 October 1999 they were resumed in order to perform certain investigative actions and then, on several further occasions they were suspended again. On 22 October 1999 the applicant was arrested. He was remanded in custody.
9.  On 11 December 1999 and 18 January 2000 the District Prosecutor extended the duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention since the investigation had not been yet completed. In his decisions the prosecutor advanced the severity of the penalty to which the applicant was liable and the risk of his absconding.
10.  In the course of the pre-trial investigation the law-enforcement authorities carried out, inter alia, some eighty interviews, thirty-three confrontations, and four forensic examinations.
11.  Several persons and the District Prosecutor brought civil actions against the accused within these criminal proceedings, seeking salary arrears, rescission of a number of contracts, in particular, the sale contract of 17 September 1997, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
12.  On 17 April 2000 and 12 June 2000 the proceedings against Sh. and Ga., respectively, were terminated.
13.  According to the applicant, by 20 April 2000 when he was officially charged, he had already hired a lawyer. However on that date the investigator refused to notify his lawyer regardless of the applicant’s respective requests to be legally represented while being served with his indictment. For this reason the applicant refused to familiarise himself with the bill of indictment and the investigator drew up a report about this.
14.  By June 2000 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereinafter “the District Court”).
15.  On 11 February 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release relying on the seriousness of the charges against him. The District Court further pointed out that not all the evidence had been yet examined. It found no medical reasons for the applicant’s release.
16.  Between June 2000 and June 2002 the District Court scheduled some forty-two hearings, four of them were adjourned since the applicant’s lawyer failed to appear or at his request. On two occasions the hearings were adjourned because the applicant was ill. On two other occasions the hearings were adjourned since Mrs G.’s lawyer failed to appear. Two hearings were adjourned since the aggrieved parties or witnesses failed to appear. One hearing was adjourned due to the change of the prosecutor. According to the records provided by the Government, the District Court questioned forty-one persons.
17.  On 19 June 2002 the District Court found the applicant guilty of several counts of abuse of power, financial fraud, forgery, and labour law breaches and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. Mrs G. was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; however the court decided to exempt her from serving the sentence. The court declined to consider the civil claims in respect of salary arrears and non-pecuniary damage, holding that they should be brought in separate civil proceedings. It considered the remainder of the civil claims and partly allowed them. In particular, the court declared the sale contract of 17 September 1997 invalid. It also lifted the attachment from the disputed premises and ordered the property right over them to be transferred back to the State.
18.  On 17 December 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”) pointed out that the applicant’s right to legal assistance at the pre-trial and trial stages was impaired and quashed the judgment of 19 June 2002 in the part related to the charges against the applicant and ordered an additional investigation. By the same judgment the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s detention on remand without specifying any reasons. Two hearings scheduled by the Court of Appeal were adjourned since the applicant’s lawyer failed to appear and one due to the absence of Mrs G.’s lawyer.
19.  The applicant and Mrs G. appealed in cassation against the first-instance and appellate court decisions. On 29 July 2003 the Supreme Court rejected those appeals.
20.  On 13 February and 7 March 2003 the District Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s requests for release relying on the seriousness of the charges against him. He also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the risk that he might go into hiding.
21.  By 14 March 2003 the additional investigation was completed and the criminal case was transferred to the District Court for consideration.
22.  On 11 April 2003 the District Court ruled that the preventive measure was correct and there were no reasons to change it.
23.  On 25 April 2003, 30 April 2003, 21 May 2003 and 5 August 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s requests to change the detention for another preventive measure. The District Court relied on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might go into hiding and obstruct the investigation, without, however, indicating any grounds for such an opinion.
24.  On 9 September 2003 the District Court found the applicant guilty of several counts of abuse of power, financial fraud, forgery, and labour law breaches and sentenced him to three years, ten months and eighteen days’ imprisonment. The court noted that the applicant had actually served his sentence while being detained during the pre-trial investigation and trial and released him. The court also banned the applicant from holding any financially accountable position for three years. As to the civil claims, the court declined to examine them holding that they should be brought in separate civil and commercial proceedings. He did not appeal against that judgment.
25.  Between 14 March 2003 and 9 September 2003 the District Court scheduled some thirteen hearings, two of them were adjourned since the applicant’s representative failed to appear. One hearing was adjourned since the District Prosecutor failed to appear.
26.  On 11 December 2003 the Court of Appeal, upon appeals lodged by the District Prosecutor and the civil claimants, quashed the judgment of 9 September 2003 in the part related to the civil claims and remitted that part of the case to the District Court for a new examination under civil procedure. The Court of Appeal upheld the remainder of the judgment. On 2 March 2004 and 29 April 2004 the civil claimants and the applicant, respectively, lodged their appeals in cassation. On 9 November 2004 the Supreme Court rejected them.
27.  On 29 January 2004 the District Court, following the decision of 11 December 2003, declined to examine the claims by the District Prosecutor and the civil claimants against the applicant as they, in its view, were within the competence of the commercial courts. On 22 June 2004 and 8 November 2005 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.
(b)  Commercial proceedings instituted by the District Prosecutor on property right over the disputed premises
28.  On an unspecified date in July-September 2004 the District Prosecutor instituted proceedings in the Kharkiv Commercial Court against the U. company and other persons, seeking to have a number of contracts related to the disputed premises, including the sale contract of 17 September 1997, declared null and void. The applicant took part in these proceeding as a third party.
29.  On 23 April 2008, following a number of rounds in the proceedings, the Kharkiv Commercial Court found in part for the prosecutor and declared a number of contracts related to the disputed premises, including the sale contract of 17 September 1997, null and void; however it discontinued the proceedings against the U. company because it had been liquidated. On 18 June 2008 the Kharkiv Commercial Court of Appeal quashed this judgment in the part related to the granted claims of the prosecutor and rendered a new one, rejecting those claims. On 23 October 2008 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the part of the decision of 18 June 2008 by which the claims by the prosecutor were rejected. On 15 January 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation against the decision of 23 October 2008.
©  Applicant’s entitlement to the disputed premises
30.  Meanwhile, in July 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kharkiv Commercial Court against the U. company, seeking to have his property right over the disputed premises acknowledged. On 20 September 2004 the court allowed his claim.
31.  On 28 February 2005 the applicant sold the premises to a third person. Later the premises were resold on several occasions.
32.  On an unknown date the Higher Commercial Court quashed the decision of 20 September 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
33.  On 23 May 2006 the Kharkiv Commercial Court attached the premises in question.
34.  On 26 July 2006 the U. company was liquidated following a decision by its shareholders. Subsequently, on 20 September 2006 the Kharkiv Commercial Court discontinued the proceedings.
(d)  Second set of civil proceedings against the applicant
35.  In October 2005 the civil claimants instituted civil proceedings in the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv against the applicant and the successive owners of the disputed premises, seeking rescission of the pertinent sale contracts.
36.  On 14 February 2007 the court found against the claimants. In particular, it found the last owner of the disputed premises to be a bona fide purchaser. On 16 May and 29 November 2007 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld that decision.
(e)  Other related proceedings
37.  Since 15 June 1999 the disputed premises have been occupied by the limited liability company, “P.”
38.  On 26May 2005 the Kharkiv Commercial Court held that the “P.” company was occupying the premises unlawfully and ordered its eviction. On 5 July and 13 October 2005 the Kharkiv Commercial Court of Appeal and the Higher Commercial Court, respectively, upheld that judgment. On 27 December 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The applicant provided no information about the further decisions adopted in the case.